Further to a recent comment which is directed at Mr. Walli, the position taken by the Linux Foundation is sometimes worryingly similar to that of the Open Source movement, as opposed to Free software. The kernel is still GPLv2-licensed though.

Remember that the Linux Foundation is funded by Novell, a ‘mixed source’ company by its very own admission [1, 2, 3, 4]. In turn, remember that Novell is openly describing itself as a Microsoft partner. Does that — by association — open Microsoft a door into the Linux Foundation? Remember what happened to the head of OSDL [1, 2]. This just comes to show Novell’s harmful role in Linux.

“A fairly sane discussion was summarised with a somehwat inappropriate headline…”After some recent disagreements with the Foundation's marketing and other questionable invitations to Microsoft [1, 2, 3] things have calmed down a little. But out comes Paul Krill with another moronic (yet eye-catching) headline, which is one among a long series of Microsoft-promotional headlines he has used in the past month. It’s a trend and it was noticed. This observation was not shared here nonetheless. It was discussed only in private.

While the statement may be true and hardly surprising, it does in fact align with the rather naive attitude that leads the Foundation right into Microsoft’s traps (which Novell must love). Here are some of the better bits from the interview:

InfoWorld: What kind of legal protection does Linux require? And has anything ever come of the Microsoft protest that there’s Linux code that they patented or something to that effect?

Zemlin: What they were talking about were patents that Microsoft holds in a range of areas. They didn’t actually disclose what those were, but in general felt that they overlapped with other technology. No, nothing ever became of it because everybody holds patents on everything out there lately in software.

InfoWorld: You have a legal defense fund. Should people have legal concerns about using Linux?

Zemlin: Just like any other major software platform, there’ll be patent trolls or opportunists who try to harm the platform. The SCO Group was a good example of that. In fact, the legal defense fund was created to assist in defense of the platform in the SCO lawsuit. And so that’s a good example.

InfoWorld: What became of that?

Zemlin: SCO lost the lawsuit, it was found that there were no copyright infringements that were there in the Linux platform, and it was proven that Novell indeed owned the copyright to the software that SCO alleged was theirs. And SCO was de-listed from Nasdaq and is now in bankruptcy proceedings.

To say more on the Linux Foundation and Microsoft, the following list of attendants for the Linux Founation’s Collaboration Summit seems innocent and benign.

Kernel developers, leading market research firm and companies such as Dell, HP, IBM, MySQL, and Oracle will debate growth opportunities for the platform

If you look further down the announcement, you will find that talks include a Microsoft friend called Al Gillen. So, Microsoft invades even an event which is all about Linux. We wrote about Al Gillen here and here. He is close to Microsoft. And again, this relates to the recent response which mentions Microsoft's intrusion into OSBC 2008. Novell enables a lot of this to happen. █

Share this post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

What Else is New

Principled, opinionated, self-governing individuals aren't any good for corporations looking to not only use their projects but to totally control those projects (copyleft licences such as GPL already make that hard enough for them, so it takes more time for legal 'hacks' such as software patents, "clown computing" and GitHub)

Certain groups that claim to represent the values of "Open Source" are in fact promoting the interests of Microsoft, GitHub etc. (i.e. monopoly or "open" as in a bunch of monopolies like Facebook and Microsoft sharing code snippets/resources over GitHub)

Torvalds and others who are middle-aged (or older) males are often torpedoed using weakly-backed allegations (or insinuations/innuendo) of sexism; that does not seem to matter and won't matter when they treat men the same (or worse)

Linus Torvalds was not fully canceled; nor was Richard Stallman, who's still heading the GNU Project (under conditions specified by those looking to oust him; people who code for Microsoft GitHub and many IBM employees)

General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Board of Red Hat, explains (keynote in 2011 Red Hat Summit/JBoss World) that he was introduced to the system as part of a military campaign; it basically helped war, not antiwar

Techrights examines Red Hat’s (IBM’s) hypocritical claims about the Free Software Foundation, founded by Richard Stallman back when IBM was the “big scary monopolist”; IBM employees were prominent among those pushing to oust Stallman from the GNU Project, which he founded, as well

The (in)famous letter against Richard Stallman (RMS), which was signed by many Red Hat employees with Microsoft (GitHub) accounts, doesn’t look particularly good in light of recent revelations/findings; it increasingly looks like IBM simply wants Microsoft-hosted and “permissively” licensed stuff, just like another project it announced yesterday and another that it promoted yesterday

One might not expect this from a so-called 'charity'; the Gates Foundation's critics are often met with unprecedented aggression, threats and retribution, which make one wonder if it's really a charity or a greedy cult of personalities (Bill and Melinda)

The assault on the media by Bill Gates is a subject not often explored by the media (maybe because a lot of it is already bribed by him); but we're beginning to gather new and important evidence that explains how critics are muzzled (even fired) and critical pieces spiked, never to see the light of day anywhere

Microsoft buying GitHub does not demonstrate that Microsoft loves Open Source (GitHub is not Open Source and may never be) but that it loves monopoly and coercion (what GitHub is all about and why it must be rejected)

The European Patent Office (EPO) keeps granting fake patents that cause a lot of real harm (examiners are pressured to play along and participate in this unlawful agenda); nobody is happy except those who profit from needless, frivolous lawsuits

After contributing to the cancellation of Richard Stallman (RMS) based on some falsehoods perpetuated in the media we're seeing the sort of thing one might expect from IBM (more so now that it totally controls Fedora and RHEL)